This is basically asking why anyone would live in or near a city like Los Angeles or New York City when Minot exists and has everything you could possibly need.
If you had to look up where Minot even is, you've proven my point.
Say what you will about whether living near the proverbial big city is worth it or not. But it cannot be denied, there is a world of experiences on offer at larger platforms that a smaller platform simply cannot provide. Network effect can be a cruel mistress.
I'm pretty sure they're referring to the concept of defederation and how that can splinter the platform.
Bluesky is ""federated"" in largely the same ways as Mastodon, but there's basically one and only one instance anyone cares about. The federation capability is just lip service to the minority of dorks like us who care.
To the vast majority of Twitter refugees, federation as a concept is not a feature, it's an irritation.
Beams? Of course not.
Beans? Absolutely.
I've heard this one phrased: "Newbs deserve a helping hand. Noobs deserve a kicking."
how do people who "hate small talk" plan on being in sustained meaningful relationships
That's the neat part--I don't!
What else would your mom call you when she's pissed off?
I don't think the existence of large instances is in itself strictly antithetical to decentralization. The network effect makes them inevitable.
The power in the fediverse is everyone has a standard toolset to interact with the entire fediverse. Most people won't, and that's okay. The important thing is that, should larger communities become too oppresive as they gentrify, replacing them is a cheap decision, as you and everyone like-minded with you can squad up and leave at any time and lose nothing as the standard tooling of the platform facilitates that migration. You have mobility in the fediverse, and that permits choice to those who seek it.
This will stop being true once the larger instances start augmenting their experiences with proprietary nonsense. Features that only work there, that you can invest into and become dependant on, that you'd have to give up if you leave.
The day that happens will be the day that chunk of the Fediverse dies. Or, well, it won't die, it will probably flourish and do very well. But it won't be the Fediverse anymore. It will just be another knee-high-fence-gated community, that happens to run on Fediverse tech.
In the microwave of evil?
If you're not measuring for cooking, why are you measuring? Being that accurate for casual consumption is strange.
Happy Debian daily driver here. I would never ever recommend raw Debian to a garden variety would-be Linux convert.
If you think something like Debian is something a Linux illiterate can just pick up and start using proficiently, you're severely out of touch with how most computer users actually think about their machines. If you even so much as know the name of your file explorer program, you're in a completely different league.
Debian prides itself on being a lean, no bloat, and stable environment made only of truly free software (with the ability to opt-in to nonfree software). To people like us, that's a clean, blank canvas on a rock-solid, reliable foundation that won't enshittify. But to most people, it's an austere, outdated, and unfashionable wasteland full of flaky, ugly tooling.
Debian can be polished to any standard one likes, but you're expected to do it yourself. Most people just aren't in the game to play it like that. Debian saddles questions of choice almost no one is asking, or frankly, even knew was a question that was ask*-able*. Mandatory customizeability is a flaw, not a feature.
I am absolutely team "just steer them to Mint". All the goodness of Debian snuck into their OS like medicine in a kid's dessert, wrapped up in something they might actually find palatable. Debian itself can be saved for when, or shall I say if, the user eventually goes poking under the hood to discover how the machine actually ticks.
The "lonely" part of the name comes from how they're the only player in the industry trying to do what they do.
Art supplies were historically not cheap. If you wanted to do this for a living, you were probably needing to aim for selling your art to the rich upper class. That implicitly meant catering to their fickle tastes and working on commission. You didn't make art for you and find your audience later, you made art for the customers you had or you starved.
And to put it bluntly, realism wasn't the fashionable hotness for most of human history. The more "crude" styles you may think of as objectively inferior to and less technically impressive as realism were in fact the styles in demand at their respective times. Fashion existed in ancient and medeival times just like it does today, and those styles were the fashion.
The idea of the independent eccentric artist who lives secluded in their ideas cave producing masterpieces for no one in particular leaving the world in awe at their genius every time they come out with something to show is a very modern concept. If any artist wanted to make a realism painting in an era where it was not popular, they'd be doing it purely for themselves at their own expense. So virtually no one did. Or if they did, their works largely didn't survive.